What if a PC could only suffer a max of -6 damage?

Your guy is hit for 42 points, -16 = -6
He's dead, unless he gets good First Aid, etc.

What ramifications would occur?

Let's say a PC has 30 hit points. He gets hit for 10 wounds, each doing 2 points of damage, so he's down to 10 hp. Then he gets hit for 20 points after armour, and drops to -10.
Now he gets 11 first aid rolls - if they each heal 2 points, he is back up to 11 positive hit points.

The current system works pretty well - players with decent armour tend to take a few small wounds befrore they get knocked down and out. So, they can drop some way below -5 and still have a chance of survival. The first aid rolls here tend to be very tense.

Occasionally, they fight something that only does lots of damage, and know there is a good chance they'll die if they get hit, say, twice. I don't mind that - there's very few things that will kill a healthy armoured knight outright with a single blow. (Say, 28 HP, 14pt armour, 6 point shield, and need to drop to below -5 to guarantee a kill = 53 points, around 16d6). A redcap can do it (since many of its hits are criticals), the bigger giants, but for most other opponents it is an unusual event indeed. Earlierin the cam,paign with weak armour, it might happen *slightly* more often, but generally, death from a single blow usually happens only when players insist on playing on in the year with knights who have become quite injured.

But the intent of your question can be kept, if the rule is rephrased as: assume that no matter how badly damaged a knight gets, a critical first aid on the most serious wound will always save his life. If that first aid criticals, then after all first aid is done, adjust the knight's hit points so he has at least 1 hit point remaining. What are the ramifications?

I'd say that first first aid roll will be very tense for badly damaged knights. There may be a tendency for players to develop even higher first aid rolls, or occasionally attempt to get inspiration on that roll. However, you still have the deterioration rules in play - so a knight may be restored to, say, 1 hit point, and then a failed chirurgery kills him the following week. Players might feel a bit more cheated by that, especially after a critical success on the first aid.

That element aside, I'd say it does no harm to the game, and does add an element of fun tension to the after-battle treatment.

But a crit First Aid won't always save a life; it heals 1d3+3, and even then you have to raise the hp above 0 to live. Recovering from a 1-hit KO is still impossible, and recovering from a 2-hit KO is still very unlikely.

But a crit First Aid won't always save a life; it heals 1d3+3, and even then you have to raise the hp above 0 to live. Recovering from a 1-hit KO is still impossible, and recovering from a 2-hit KO is still very unlikely.


Yes, as it stands now
Darren's suggestion is a make-believe change to the rule
as my idea is

I think more knights would live longer
si/no?

On the face of it, it shouldn't make a lot of difference. You critical (usually) 1 time in 20, so out of 20 knights that would otherwise die, you are saving only one of them. So to me, that's not really worthwhile to use it, when you lose the current clarity over when a character is actually dead.

Also, in practice, I suspect it will save a lot more knights than one in twenty.

The knowledge that the rule is there to save knights will increase pressure on GMs to fudge things so that knights survive, perhaps by ingame methods of having 25+ skill healers conveniently turn up to ace that roll, or perhaps by rolling it in secret and conveniently succeeding every time.

I know some GMs don't notice that pressure, but a lot do, so I think that is a big negative. At present, the game clearly tells you,, "you are dead, dead, DEAD" (after you have taken enough damage that first aid cannot save you), and people accept that without difficulty. As soon as there's a rule which says, "Oh hang on, there is a chance you might survive," that will evolve in some groups to, "Yes, you nearly always survive. Though some will die to preserve the illusion that it's random."

Then, the GM might end up (not necessarily deliberately) letting characters die he doesn't care for, and keeping those alive he has plans for. I don't think that's healthy.

On balance, I don't need such a rule as I like the existing mechanics, but if a group knows what they are getting in to, it could be a good rule. If such a rule were to be used officially, I'd like it clearly labelled as an optional rule, with advice to the GM about the likely effects if it is used.

Thank you all.
Officially to that idea of mine, I say "bye bye."

The current system does have a nice level of simplicity, in that the PC Knight needs to keep track of his wounds, and when he gets First Aid he can roll once for each wound. If he ends up at 1HP+ then he isn't dead. If he doesn't, then he is.

I also like the idea that a crit-First Aid will always bring him up to 1HP, but DarrenHill makes a good point in that it could lead to GMs feeling pressure to "fudge" things so the PC Knights survive.

What might work better is to keep the current system, with a caveat. PC has 5 wounds, and gets 5 first aid rolls.
If he ends at 1HP+ - he is good.
IF he ends at 0HP- without any First Aid crits, he is dead.
IF he ends at 0HP- with at least one First Aid crit, then he gets another First Aid roll. If it is another crit, then he survives and is at 1HP.

Sadly there is no real way to avoid the "fudge" pressure, but then it is always there so hopefully the GM is good enough to avoid it.

While I feel that Darren makes very good points, my own experience is that GM's who feel pressure to "fudge" player survivability do so because that's their GM'ing style and will feel that pressure regardless. I actually believe the current system, as is, does more to stress that GM pressure to "fudge" because there are virtually no other alternatives to make knights live longer. YMMV.

I almost feel that you could potentially use this a two-edged sword. If the PKs can be healed on a critical first aid and always survive, then what about that (insert enemy here) that one of the PKs killed during an extended scene in battle, or during a raid? They think the enemy is dead, there is no way he could have survived that blow, right? Only to have that character show back up a few years later with a sole purpose to repay the favor, could you not?

I do like the simplicity of the first aid system and sometimes it is rough for the PKs when they get one-shotted or two-shotted (especially when they are just not rolling well and the GM is having the best luck that anyone has ever seen). Does this also mean that if a first aid roll get's fumbled before a crit is rolled that it would make it impossible to save the PK?

My concern is that, I feel, a player should feel invested in his character. If a player begins to feel that characters are little more than faceless knights who, more likely than not, will be dead in a few years/adventures then that investment is lost. Knights should feel invincible. They aren't, but they should feel it. Because if they don't, they'd never do all the crazy tthings that they do. But when a player is playing his 5th cousin twice removed because the rest of his family has died adventuring the the mood of the game, IMO, is lessened.

My concern is that, I feel, a player should feel invested in his character.

"Should" is an arbitrary judgement. Let us go for now with
"My concern is that, I feel, as a player, I should feel invested in my character"

Is this even a question, though?
It seems everyone always becomes invested in their characters, whether they wish to or not, to the extent that the player enjoys/allows.


If a player begins to feel that characters are little more than faceless knights who,

Is this a real problem? Not a theoretical one, does anyone have this problem in their game?


more likely than not, will be dead in a few years/adventures then that investment is lost.

"more likely than not" is not true
It is pretty much guaranteed they "will be dead in a few years/adventures"


Knights should feel invincible. They aren't, but they should feel it. Because if they don't, they'd never do all the crazy things that they do. But when a player is playing his 5th cousin twice removed because the rest of his family has died adventuring the the mood of the game, IMO, is lessened.

I agree that playing hollow meaningless characters is a bore
I am unable to control, or to care really, how people play their own games
I haven't experienced it as a problem
In my previous campaign I had one player literally lose a character per adventure for a while
It actually heightened his appreciation of mortality

In my previous campaign I had one player literally lose a character per adventure for a while
It actually heightened his appreciation of mortality


I have had the same. One of my friends proudly boasts of how many characters he lost during our full-length pendragon campaign: we had 4 players, and he lost more characters then everyone else put together. (And in fact, in 510, a multi-session year, he lost 3 characters in one year. And they were all characters who had been around for at least a couple of years.)
But he still got invested in his characters, and if anything, it made him appreciate the ones who lived longest, a lot more.

And JOLT,

Forgive me if I seem to have come down hard on you
it was a great question and a candid reply
and I really do appreciate your opinion
everyone's
I do not want to crush the important IMO that shows our own commitments and feelings

So thanks
and I'll try to quit using the color

I'm a cruel GM. If they drop into minuses they are dead. ;D

Coming a little late to Court but here is my thinking. These would make great optional rules. I personally like it that combat can be quite deadly, especially after a knight has a few unhealed wounds on him.

I could see offering the following as options:
1) No knight can drop below -6 HP, if. Wound would take him below -6 he is dropped to -6 instead.
or
2) A critical success on the initial First Aid roll made for a given wound will always result in the character being restored to (at least) 1 HP after all First Aid rolls have been made.
or/and
3) A fumble on the initial First Aid roll made for a wound on a character with negative Hit Points means that no First Aid will save the character. Barring miraculous intervention the character will succumb to his wounds.

Option three does increase the risk of dying. If the initial First Aid roll is fumbled it won't matter how good the following rolls are.

I think Horsa's idea has merit. I have played in (almost) countless rpg's. Some play exactly to the rules, most have house-rules. Those house-rules in many cases, increase the chance of PC's survivability. Codifying those wouldn't hurt the game and allows groups play to the level of realism they want. For example, in the GPC, after the Battle of St. Albans in 495, during the feast, the rules state there is only ONE way to survive. Many GM's modify that rule so that some of the knights survive somehow. I know of one instance where during the battle, he made sure at least one knight took enough damage so he wouldn't be at the feast and therefore survive.

And by actually codifying those rules, players and GMs get the game play they prefer.

Robert Schroeder
Hzark10@aol.com

Characters should always have a chance of dying, but there's no doubt that KAP's chance of dying is too high. The negative consequences are:
1. Many players will quit a campaign after their first PC dies, that makes an ongoing campaign rather hard to manage.
2. Players don't have an incentive to role play their characters, meaning their play is boring from a game master's point of view.
3. It forces players to chase the comic book religious and chivalry bonuses, which also tends to cripple their role playing .
4. Because they don't really role play their characters are flat rather than rounded and life like.
5. They have a harder time playing their descendants as they did not create a father or grandfather that had a character for them to either continues with changes based on their genetic variance of traits, or play against if they don't want to be the person their father was.

OPTIONAL HOUSE RULES

1. When players suffer a major wound they're allowed a save with a prudence roll, if successful they take only half damage (over armor) and the wound is reduced to a light wound as far as other effects go, but also a knockdown.
2. Then players suffer a mortal wound, they roll valor if successful they save their lives and 1 HP, but still for attribute loss as a mortal wound. If they also make a prudence roll they save half the damage over armor and reduce the wound to a major one with no further saves and is an unconscious)
3. All unconsciousness can be saves against with a valor roll.

Proof of KAP's dangerousness

MAX DAMAGE=SIZ 18+STR 18=36=6d6 vs MAX HIT POINTS=SIZ 18+CON 21=39
SCORE=DAMAGE=average=(critical)
33-36 = 6d6 = 21.0 (42 – 10 = 32)
27-32 = 5d6 = 17.5 (35 – 10 = 25)
21-26 = 4d6 = 14.0 (28 – 10 = 28)
18-20 = 3d6 = 10.5 (21 – 10 = 11)
10-17 = 2d6 = 07.5 (15 -10 = 5)

Average character does in close combat 5d6 = average critical 25 points damage.

CHARGES
Courser 5d6 = 17.5 (35 – 10 = 25)
Charger 6d6 = 21 (42 – 10 = 32)
Destrier 8d6 = 28 (56 -10 = 46)

Hit points = unconscious [MAX HIT POINTS=SIZ 18+CON 21=39]
38-39 = 10
34-37 = 9
30-33 = 8
24-29 = 7
20-23 = 6
16-19 = 5
12-15 = 4
10-11 = 3

Major wounds = constitution+
1. Roll hit points or unconscious
2. Roll table 5-3
3. Chirugery required
Mortal wounds = 0 hit points
1. First aid within an hour or dead, first aid saves only 6 hit point.
2. Roll 3 times on table 5-3
3. Chirurgery required

Table5-3 roll d6
1 Size
2 Dexterity
3 Strength
4 Constitution
5 Appearance
6 No loss

First aid
success = d3 HP
critical = d3+3 HP